On June 23, 2007 candidate Barack Obama speaking in Hartford, Conn. said, “I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”
Where is my decrease in premium Mr. President? Where is my savings? We were told we would all have universal healthcare. Now I hear we have to look at spending additional BILLIONS for mental health because our “universal healthcare” will not cover the treatments. What’s the story here?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when speaking on the “universal healthcare” bill said, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Well, we passed it and now we find out mental health coverage needs to be redefined, improved and expanded. I guess passing a bill without reading it in the middle of the night was not such a good idea after all.
Most of the gun control proposals coming forward in a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy in Sandy Hook have little to do with what happen and all to do with another agenda. If many of the proposals now being offered had been in place prior to December the events of that day would still have happened. Now is not the time to act in haste, based on an emotional response to individual human psychosis.
Our new “universal healthcare” is not a cure all and will not prevent all acts of senseless violence fostered by psychotic individuals nor will new bans on firearms and ammunition. I have heard that we should ban all guns, and I have heard others say such a ban will work as well as our ban on heroin, crack and our futile attempt at prohibition.
There are some proposals that seem on the surface to be a logical course of action to protect human life from unreasonable risk. We may need some revisions, but be careful what you wish for. Too often in response to human emotion, actions are taken that are not well thought out or given full rational analysis. Now is the time for careful thought and consideration on mental illness and gun control.
In 2007 a State Senator opposed the use of a hand gun to protect a home, from the unknown intent of an intruder. The issue arose when a homeowner was fined $750 for a violation of a local handgun ban when he shot a burglar within his own home. Should you be allowed to protect your family and home from invasion and possible harm?
Would you agree with that State Senator? How do you suppose that same State Senator looks at proposals for gun control now? If protection of your own family and property is not an appropriate use of force what is? Would you want that State Senator to be deciding on the course of action our country should now take on gun control? Can you understand why some citizens would feel uncomfortable putting that State Senator in charge at this time to enact revisions to gun control?
That State Senator is now our President Barack Obama. Be careful what you wish for.